Implementation Science Journal Impact Factor & Information

Publisher: BioMed Central Ltd, BioMed Central

Journal description

Implementation Science is an open access, peer-reviewed online journal that aims to publish research relevant to the scientific study of methods to promote the uptake of research findings into routine healthcare in both clinical and policy contexts. Biomedical research constantly produces new findings - but often these are not routinely translated into health care practice. Implementation research is the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of clinical research findings and other evidence-based practices into routine practice, and hence to improve the quality and effectiveness of health care. It includes the study of influences on healthcare professional and organisational behaviour.

Current impact factor: 4.12

Impact Factor Rankings

2015 Impact Factor Available summer 2016
2014 Impact Factor 4.122
2013 Impact Factor 3.47
2012 Impact Factor 2.372
2011 Impact Factor 3.1
2010 Impact Factor 2.514
2009 Impact Factor 2.485

Impact factor over time

Impact factor

Additional details

5-year impact 4.62
Cited half-life 3.90
Immediacy index 0.44
Eigenfactor 0.01
Article influence 1.45
Website Implementation Science website
Other titles IS
ISSN 1748-5908
OCLC 65431651
Material type Document, Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Internet Resource, Computer File, Journal / Magazine / Newspaper

Publisher details

BioMed Central

  • Pre-print
    • Author can archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author can archive a post-print version
  • Conditions
    • Publisher's version/PDF may be used
    • Eligible UK authors may deposit in OpenDepot
    • Creative Commons Attribution License
    • Copy of License must accompany any deposit.
    • All titles are open access journals
    • 'BioMed Central' is an imprint of 'Springer Verlag (Germany)'
  • Classification
    ​ green

Publications in this journal

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In their article on "Evidence-based de-implementation for contradicted, unproven, and aspiring healthcare practices," Prasad and Ioannidis (IS 9:1, 2014) referred to extra-scientific "entrenched practices and other biases" that hinder evidence-based de-implementation. Using the case example of the de-implementation of radical mastectomy, we disaggregated "entrenched practices and other biases" and analyzed the historical, economic, professional, and social forces that presented resistance to de-implementation. We found that these extra-scientific factors operated to sustain a commitment to radical mastectomy, even after the evidence slated the procedure for de-implementation, because the factors holding radical mastectomy in place were beyond the control of individual clinicians. We propose to expand de-implementation theory through the inclusion of extra-scientific factors. If the outcome to which we aim is appropriate and timely de-implementation, social scientific analysis will illuminate the context within which the healthcare practitioner practices and, in doing so, facilitate de-implementation by pointing to avenues that lead to systems change. The implications of our analysis lead us to contend that intervening in the broader context in which clinicians work-the social, political, and economic realms-rather than focusing on healthcare professionals' behavior, may indeed be a fruitful approach to effect change.
    Implementation Science 12/2015; 10(1). DOI:10.1186/s13012-015-0211-7
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite available evidence for optimal management of spinal pain, poor adherence to guidelines and wide variations in healthcare services persist. One of the objectives of the Canadian Chiropractic Guideline Initiative is to develop and evaluate targeted theory- and evidence-informed interventions to improve the management of non-specific neck pain by chiropractors. In order to systematically develop a knowledge translation (KT) intervention underpinned by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), we explored the factors perceived to influence the use of multimodal care to manage non-specific neck pain, and mapped behaviour change techniques to key theoretical domains. Individual telephone interviews exploring beliefs about managing neck pain were conducted with a purposive sample of 13 chiropractors. The interview guide was based upon the TDF. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed by two independent assessors using thematic content analysis. A 15-member expert panel formally met to design a KT intervention. Nine TDF domains were identified as likely relevant. Key beliefs (and relevant domains of the TDF) included the following: influence of formal training, colleagues and patients on clinicians (Social Influences); availability of educational material (Environmental Context and Resources); and better clinical outcomes reinforcing the use of multimodal care (Reinforcement). Facilitating factors considered important included better communication (Skills); audits of patients' treatment-related outcomes (Behavioural Regulation); awareness and agreement with guidelines (Knowledge); and tailoring of multimodal care (Memory, Attention and Decision Processes). Clinicians conveyed conflicting beliefs about perceived threats to professional autonomy (Social/Professional Role and Identity) and speed of recovery from either applying or ignoring the practice recommendations (Beliefs about Consequences). The expert panel mapped behaviour change techniques to key theoretical domains and identified relevant KT strategies and modes of delivery to increase the use of multimodal care among chiropractors. A multifaceted KT educational intervention targeting chiropractors' management of neck pain was developed. The KT intervention consisted of an online education webinar series, clinical vignettes and a video underpinned by the Brief Action Planning model. The intervention was designed to reflect key theoretical domains, behaviour change techniques and intervention components. The effectiveness of the proposed intervention remains to be tested.
    Implementation Science 12/2015; 10(1). DOI:10.1186/s13012-015-0213-5
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The decision to have lung transplantation as treatment for end-stage lung disease from cystic fibrosis (CF) has benefits and serious risks. Although patient decision aids are effective interventions for helping patients reach a quality decision, little is known about implementing them in clinical practice. Our study evaluated a sustainable approach for implementing a patient decision aid for adults with CF considering referral for lung transplantation. A prospective pragmatic observational study was guided by the Knowledge-to-Action Framework. Healthcare professionals in all 23 Canadian CF clinics were eligible. We surveyed participants regarding perceived barriers and facilitators to patient decision aid use. Interventions tailored to address modifiable identified barriers included training, access to decision aids, and conference calls. The primary outcome was >80% use of the decision aid in year 2. Of 23 adult CF clinics, 18 participated (78.2%) and 13 had healthcare professionals attend training. Baseline barriers were healthcare professionals' inadequate knowledge for supporting patients making decisions (55%), clarifying patients' values for outcomes of options (58%), and helping patients handle conflicting views of others (71%). Other barriers were lack of time (52%) and needing to change how transplantation is discussed (42%). Baseline facilitators were healthcare professionals feeling comfortable discussing bad transplantation outcomes (74%), agreeing the decision aid would be easy to experiment with (71%) and use in the CF clinic (87%), and agreeing that using the decision aid would not require reorganization of the CF clinic (90%). After implementing the decision aid with interventions tailored to the barriers, decision aid use increased from 29% at baseline to 85% during year 1 and 92% in year 2 (p < 0.001). Compared to baseline, more healthcare professionals at the end of the study were confident in supporting decision-making (p = 0.03) but continued to feel inadequate ability with supporting patients to handle conflicting views (p = 0.01). Most Canadian CF clinics agreed to participate in the study. Interventions were used to target identified modifiable barriers to using the patient decision aid in routine CF clinical practice. CF clinics reported using it with almost all patients in the second year.
    Implementation Science 12/2015; 10(1). DOI:10.1186/s13012-015-0206-4
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Evidence suggests that systematic reviews are used infrequently by physicians in clinical decision-making. One proposed solution is to create filtered resources so that information is validated and refined in order to be read quickly. Two shortened systematic review formats were developed to enhance their use in clinical decision-making. To prepare for a full-scale trial, we conducted a pilot study to test methods and procedures in order to refine the processes. A recruitment email was sent to physicians practicing full- or part-time in family medicine or general internal medicine. The pilot study took place in an online environment and eligible physicians were randomized to one of the systematic review formats (shortened or full-length) and instructed to read the document. Participants were asked to provide the clinical bottom line and apply the information presented to a clinical scenario. Participants' answers were evaluated independently by two investigators against "gold standard" answers prepared by an expert panel. Fifty-six clinicians completed the pilot study within a 2-month period with a response rate of 4.3 %. Agreement between investigators in assessing participants' answers was determined by calculating a kappa statistic. Two questions were assessed separately, and a kappa statistic was calculated at 1.00 (100 % agreement) for each. Agreement between investigators in assessing participants' answers is satisfactory. Although recruitment for the pilot study was completed in a reasonable time-frame, response rates were low and will require large numbers of contacts. The results indicate that conducting a full-scale trial is feasible. NCT02414360 .
    Implementation Science 12/2015; 10(1):118. DOI:10.1186/s13012-015-0303-4
  • Implementation Science 12/2015; 10(1). DOI:10.1186/s13012-015-0329-7
  • Steve Martino · Paula Zimbrean · Ariadna Forray · Joy Kaufman · Paul Desan · Todd A. Olmstead · Ralitza Gueorguieva · Heather Howell · Ashley McCaherty · Kimberly A. Yonkers
    Implementation Science 12/2015; 10(1). DOI:10.1186/s13012-015-0327-9
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Currently, national training programs do not have the capacity to meet the growing demand for dissemination and implementation (D&I) workforce education and development. The Colorado Research in Implementation Science Program (CRISP) developed and delivered an introductory D&I workshop adapted from national programs to extend training reach and foster a local learning community for D&I. To gauge interest and assess learning needs, a pre-registration survey was administered. Based on feedback, a 1.5-day workshop was designed. Day 1 introduced D&I frameworks, strategies, and evaluation principles. Local and national D&I experts provided ignite-style talks on key lessons followed by panel discussion. Breakout sessions discussed community engagement and applying for D&I grants. A workbook was developed to enhance the training and provided exercises for application to an individual's projects. Day 2 offered expert-led mentoring sessions with selected participants who desired advanced instruction. Two follow-up surveys (immediate post-workshop, 6 months) assessed knowledge gained from participation and utilization of workshop content. Ninety-three workshop registrants completed an assessment survey to inform workshop objectives and curriculum design; 43 % were new and 54 % reported a basic understanding of the D&I field. Pre-registrants intended to use the training to "apply for a D&I grant" (73 %); "incorporate D&I into existing projects" (76 %), and for quality improvement (51 %). Sixty-eight individuals attended Day 1; 11 also attended Day 2 mentoring sessions. In the 1-week post-workshop survey (n = 34), 100 % strongly agreed they were satisfied with the training; 97 % strongly agreed the workshop workbook was a valuable resource. All Day 2 participants strongly agreed that working closely with faculty and experts increased their overall confidence. In the 6-month follow-up evaluation (n = 23), evidence of new D&I-related manuscripts and grant proposals was found. Training materials were published online ( ) and disseminated via the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical and Translational Science Awards Consortium. To sustain reach, CRISP adapted the materials into an interactive e-book ( ) and launched a new graduate course. Local D&I training workshops can extend the reach of national training programs.
    Implementation Science 12/2015; 10(1):94. DOI:10.1186/s13012-015-0281-6